do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3030/98 by Raimo ILASKIVI to the Commission. Finnish teaching in the Åland Islands
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, ILASKIVI
Subjects: Finland, civil servant, language teaching, linguistic discrimination

C 96/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.4.1999

(1999/C 96/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3026/98

by Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Admission of holders of German diplomas issued after six semesters of study to A/LA posts

In his answer of 10 February 1998 to Written Question E-4186/97 (1) by Mrs BÆrbara D(cid:252)hrkop, Commissioner
Liikanen stated that the Commission admits holders of German diplomas issued after the minimum compulsory
period of eight semesters to category A/LA posts in the European civil service.

In its defence against the action for annulment brought by Mr Vicente Alonso Morales (T-299/97, paragraph 3),
the Commission declared that holders of the German (cid:145)Fachhochschuldiplom(cid:146) issued after eight semesters of
study are admitted to category A/LA posts.

The notice of open competition COM/A/1047 published in OJ C 145, 13.5.1997 stipulates that periods of training
count as professional experience.

Bearing in mind the above-mentioned facts, why does the Commission admit holders of the German
(cid:145)Fachhochschuldiplom(cid:146) to category A/LA posts in the European civil service, given that the said qualification
consists of a maximum of six semesters of study, together with a placement with an undertaking for one or two
semesters as professional experience?

(1) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2740/98 by
Mrs Vallelersundi (1).

(1) See page 141.

(1999/C 96/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3030/98

by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Finnish teaching in the ¯land Islands

According to recent press reports an official of the ¯land provincial government refused another official
authorisation to learn Finnish, Finland(cid:146)s first official language, during working hours. The official concerned
would have been allowed to learn other languages, however. The reason given was that knowledge of Finnish was
unnecessary, since the ¯land Islands are a monolingual autonomous area, despite the fact that many of the
tourists visiting the Islands are Finnish. The decision refusing authorisation to learn Finnish, but not other
languages, is discriminatory and demeaning.

Does the Commission take the view that the ban is, for example, consistent with the status granted to the ¯land
Islands by the EU? If not, what measures does the Commission plan to take in order to enable the official
concerned from the ¯land provincial government to learn Finnish on the same basis as other languages?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1998)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national
authorities concerned.
Resolution on the release of Leyla Zana
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Kurdistan question, executive, political prisoner













EUR-Lex - 51998IP0945 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51998IP0945

Resolution on the release of Leyla Zana  


Official Journal C 328 , 26/10/1998 P. 0194 





B4-0945/98Resolution on the release of Leyla ZanaThe European Parliament,- having regard to its previous resolutions on human rights violations in Turkey and on the Kurdish question,A. whereas Leyla Zana, a recipient of the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize, has still not been released,B. whereas the State Security Court in Ankara has sentenced her to a further two years in prison for an article on the traditional Kurdish New Year which was published in the HADEP (People's Democracy Party) newsletter,C. whereas during the same trial six other Kurdish accused persons, including Güven Özata, vice-chairman of HADEP, were sentenced to prison terms of between one and two years,D. whereas another Kurdish former deputy, Hatip Dicle, has been sentenced to a prison term of 23 months and a fine for an article published in the daily newspaper 'Üjkede Gündem',E. whereas five leading members of HADEP, including its chairman, Murat Bozlak, who were in pre-trial detention for seven months, have been released, but will have to appear in court and are liable to prison sentences of 22 years,F. whereas the Commission, in its report on the implementation of the customs union between the European Union and Turkey, acknowledged that no significant progress had been achieved in Turkey in the field of human rights and democratic reform,G. whereas Turkey is still failing to abide by the criteria laid down in Copenhagen, especially with regard to democracy and human rights,1. Condemns the repeated human rights violations in Turkey, which chiefly target representatives of the Kurdish people;2. Is particularly shocked by the sentencing of Leyla Zana to a further two years in prison and urgently reiterates its call for her release and for the release of all political prisoners;3. Expresses its deep concern about the deteriorating political and institutional situation in Turkey, and notes the lack of any improvement with regard to the protection of human rights and the promotion of the rule of law;4. Reaffirms its conviction that there can be no military solution to the Kurdish question and therefore calls on the Turkish authorities to engage in direct talks with the Kurdish people's representative organisations, with the aim of finding a peaceful political solution enabling their economic, social, political and cultural rights to be recognised;5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the Turkish Government and Grand National Assembly.15
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2986/98 by John IVERSEN Unfair allocation of banana import licences
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, IVERSEN
Subjects: EU production, import licence, import policy, monopoly, multinational enterprise, tropical fruit

6.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 320/21

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties faced by Irish farmers due in part to the prevailing poor weather
conditions. A number of measures have been taken to advance payments to the Member States. For beef
premia, there is an increase from 60 to 80 % of the advance to Member States as well as a change in timing to
16 October 1998 for payment of the advance. For sheep premia, the regulation fixing the second advance of
the premium has been adopted in good time allowing the payment to be made to producers from 15 October
1998. In both cases it will be for the Member State to make payments to farmers as soon as possible.

In the case of compensatory allowances normal advances to Ireland are available and it will be for the Member
State to make payments as soon as possible.

(1999/C 320/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2986/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Unfair allocation of banana import licences

In its proposal for a regulation implementing the new organisation of the market in bananas, which is due to
enter into force on 1 January 1999, does the Commission intend to continue with the unfair arrangements for
allocating banana import licences?

Under the current, unfair arrangements, the big multinationals have a monopoly over primary imports which
gives them control of virtually the entire banana market, whereas the EU’s own importers receive almost no
import licences and so have to buy the bananas off the big American companies at excessive prices.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

In accordance with the Council¢s wishes, licences will be allocated on the basis of past activity. Import rights
will thus be given to operators who have actually imported bananas during a specified reference period.

None the less, the Commission plans to increase considerably the percentage of licences reserved for
µnewcomers¢, which should help small operators in particular to enter the market in banana imports.

(1999/C 320/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3012/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Discrimination against the blind

Guide dogs for the blind may not be transported on Eurostar, which makes it difficult for blind people to travel
on the train.

Does the Commission share my view that this measure discriminates against the blind?

Does it conflict with European legislation and/or with European fundamental principles? If so, what steps does
the Commission intend to take?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3001/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Status of public banks
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: Austria, Luxembourg, State aid, credit institution, legal status, public bank

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/175

(1999/C 118/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Data searches of Austrian banks

The Commission, in its capacity as the authority with responsibility for competition, is currently going
through data removed during searches of Austrian banks. Cartel cases are known to take a very long time.

Can the Commission nevertheless give an approximate future time frame for these proceedings?

If so, what is the timetable? When can concrete results be expected?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

The Honourable Member will appreciate that, as a matter of principle, the Commission is not in a position
to comment on pending proceedings. This equally applies to questions regarding expected developments
in the future.

(1999/C 118/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3001/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Status of public banks

The Commission is currently engaged in an investigation of the status of public-law banks which receive
State guarantees. It was called upon in the Amsterdam Treaty to do so, and is complying with this
instruction.

1.

Can the Commission say at this stage when the results of the investigation can be expected?

In how many, and which, Member States has the Commission encountered unjustified advantages

2.
arising from State guarantees, and how does it intend to proceed further?

Against

3.
(cid:145)Declaration by Luxembourg and Austria on credit institutions(cid:146)?

the background of its investigations to date, how does the Commission view the

4.

Does the declaration have any concrete effect on Austria(cid:146)s situation?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1998)

The Commission has completed the examination and adopted the report on 17 June 1998. It aims to

1.
present the report to the Ecofin Council at its meeting on 23 November 1998.

2.
The report deals with the question of which services within the banking sector are regarded by the
Member States as (cid:145)services of general economic interest(cid:146) pursuant to Article 90 (2) of the EC Treaty and to
what extent compensation facilities are granted for their procurement. The report does not address in
particular the compatibility with the EC Treaty of state guarantees in favour of certain banks.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3103/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. Purchase of Manchester United Football Club
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: North West (England), dominant position, professional sport, purchase, sports body, television

C 118/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

Can the Council say whether or not everyone is free to organise professional and amateur sporting
activities, on a one-off or series basis, in a free market system, unlike the CONI-dominated monopolistic
system that exists in Italy, in particular in view of the multi-billion lira subsidies CONI receives?

Reply

(7 December 1998)

Given the division of responsibilities between Institutions provided for by the Treaty establishing the
European Community, the Council can only inform the Honourable Member that this is a matter for the
Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 89 and 90 of the EC Treaty.

(1999/C 118/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3103/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Purchase of Manchester United Football Club

In view of the purchase of Manchester United Football Club by Rupert Murdoch, will the Commission
confirm that any attempt to prevent television stations (other than those which are part of Mr Murdoch(cid:146)s
media empire) from acquiring television rights would constitute a breach of Article 86?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Article 86 EC of the EC Treaty prohibits any abuse by undertakings of a dominant position within the
common market or in a substantial part of it in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

However, the application of Article 86 to any individual case depends on an evaluation of the surrounding
legal and economic circumstances in order to determine, in particular, whether, in fact, the undertaking
holds a dominant position and whether its conduct amounts to an abuse of that dominant position.

It is not, therefore, possible to determine at this stage whether, in the event that BSkyB(cid:146)s bid for
Manchester united football club is successful and obtains the necessary clearances, any possible future
conduct of BSkyB would contravene Article 86 EC of the EC Treaty.

(1999/C 118/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3108/98

by Hilde Hawlicek (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Tourism in the developing countries: safeguarding an important source of income

Tourism is a primary source of income for many developing countries. At the same time, ill-conceived
tourist developments can often have adverse social and environmental consequences for developing
countries.

Are any plans in the offing at European Union level to help promote socially and environmentally aware
tourism in Third World countries?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2937/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. Problem of homelessness in the EU
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: economic and social cohesion, employment policy, homelessness, housing need, housing policy, pauperisation, poverty, social policy, subsidised housing













EUR-Lex - 91998E2937 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2937

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2937/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. Problem of homelessness in the EU  


Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0059 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2937/98by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission(8 October 1998)Subject: Problem of homelessness in the EUThere are a growing number of EU citizens facing serious difficulties in gaining access to affordable housing. Within the Community 15 million poorly housed persons are obliged to live in housing which is over-crowded and of a distinctly inadequate quality. Poor housing often leads to other problems such as unemployment, ill health, crime and ultimately poverty.Does the Commission recognise and realise the right to decent and affordable housing for all, both as an essential element of social cohesion and as necessary conditions for economic development?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission(10 November 1998)The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-532/98 by Mrs Ferrer(1).In addition, housing and homelessness issues will be among those raised in the forthcoming communication from the Commission on social inclusion. The Honourable Member may also be interested to read the report on the implementation of the 1992 Recommendation on minimum income to be published shortly, which also makes reference to actions on homelessness and housing.(1) OJ C 323, 23.10.1998.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2171/98 of 8 October 1998 fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1564/98
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, barley, export refund

L 273/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 10. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2171/98

of 8 October 1998

fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation to
tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1564/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the
market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 923/96 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/
95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the
measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the
market for cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2094/98 (4), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the refund for the
export of barley exported from Spain to all third countries
was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No
1564/98 (5);

Whereas Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95
provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the
tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92,
decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of

the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No
1501/95; whereas in that case a contract is awarded to any
tenderer whose bid is equal
than the
maximum refund;

to or

lower

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the cereal in question
results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the
amount specified in Article 1;

Whereas the Management Committee for Cereals has not
delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its
chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 2 to 8 October 1998, pursuant
to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No
1564/98, the maximum refund on exportation of barley
shall be ECU 73,96 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 October 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 8 October 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.
(3) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 266, 1. 10. 1998, p. 61.
(5) OJ L 203, 21. 7. 1998, p. 6.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3003/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Application for State aid by the firm of Anker
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: Austria, European Commissioner, State aid, bakery, control of State aid, industrial restructuring, restriction on competition, small and medium-sized enterprises













EUR-Lex - 91998E3003 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3003

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3003/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Application for State aid by the firm of Anker  


Official Journal C 182 , 28/06/1999 P. 0038 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3003/98by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission(8 October 1998)Subject: Application for State aid by the firm of AnkerAn application for support from the firm of Anker (industrial bakers) is currently being considered by the Social Affairs Ministry in Vienna. The financial assistance requested is in the region of 90 million schillings, to be used for restructuring the firm and maintaining its economic viability. This will not be the first time that this operation has been restructured with the help of State funds.According to press reports, the Austrian Social Affairs Ministry has already agreed to grant the aid.This assistance will go to alleviate burdens which should in fact be borne by the firm of Anker itself. The money is to be used not only for restructuring and safeguarding jobs, but also for purposes of expansion.In my view, further support would represent a distortion of competition to the detriment of many small and medium-sized businesses in the baking and confectionery industry in Austria.1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?2. What is the Commission's view of this financial assistance from the State?3. What will the Commission do if the situation is deemed to violate the rules of competition?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission(12 November 1998)A complainant already informed the Commission that the Austrian firm Anker applied for a state aid to the ministry of social affairs. The Commission will ask the Austrian authorities for their comments and will also investigate whether the company received any state aid in the past, and if so, whether the aid was provided in accordance with an approved or existing scheme.In general, rescue or restructuring aid to a large undertaking would require an individual notification to the Commission. If any Member State grants state aid to an undertaking before the Commission has made its position known, the Commission would without any delay initiate the procedure provided in Article 93 (2) of the EC Treaty. If the Commission considers that such a state aid is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 92, the Commission would declare the aid illegal and the Member State would have to recover the state aid.